Referring to USPTO Classification Definitions, the present invention is relevant to Class 215 Bottles and Jars, but specifically to subclass 392 Drip-catching Attachment. Subclass 392 “[. . . ] is indented under subclass 386 [Attachment or Adjunct]”, which classifies “Subject matter including a structure to absorb or collect moisture of condensation or drip accumulation on the exterior of a bottle, jug, or jar”. Bottles, jugs, and jars have in common that they are vessels of a capacity to hold multiple servings of their intended contents. This distinction is relevant to the present invention, which is a pad apparatus that operates as an adjunct to jug-type vessels used in beverage and food service. There are many kinds, but each has in common that they are vessels that maintain multiple servings of chilled items at temperature with ice. Such vessels are positioned over or upon this pad apparatus.
The present invention is a new pad apparatus designed to first absorb and then disperse condensate runoff generated by ice-filled containers. Such containers, as wine coolers and chafing dishes, are widely used for serving beverages and food during social occasions. It is usual in a party setting for the aforementioned containers of ice to sweat for many hours, resulting in an untidy pool of water, or water damage to an underlying surface. The present invention addresses these issues of untidiness and damage.
Prior art relating to the present invention falls into two groups: traditional methods and the published prior art of the USPTO. The traditional methods include under liners, furniture toppers, and glass sheeting. Published prior art relates to the present invention less specifically, but in the interests of diligence and thoroughness, two comparable technologies will be discussed: coasters and exudate pads.
The first traditional method under consideration is the use of an under liner. Wine coolers containing one or more bottles, as well as the necessary amount of ice to maintain temperature, are often placed upon a folded towel lying on a platter. In the restaurant trade this combination of a plate and cloth is referred to as an under liner. Under liners have limited efficacy to absorb and isolate condensate runoff because, as the cloth saturates and the platter becomes very cold, secondary condensate invariably forms beneath the platter resulting in damage to a vulnerable surface. It is also disadvantageous that under liners must be emptied to prevent them from spilling over. Hence there is a need for a protective device that is able to insulate an underlying surface from cold, and, that can absorb and disperse moisture over many hours of use without being attended.
The second traditional method for protecting surfaces is to use a custom furniture topper. Toppers cover an entire tabletop and are generally made from thick, rigid materials such as particleboard or laminated cardboard that have been covered with vinyl or fabric. While toppers are effective barriers against water and temperature extremes, they have many disadvantages. The primary disadvantage is that toppers are custom made in the shape of their intended tabletops, typically for a dining room table, and so are not practical for use throughout a home. Toppers are also expensive, are bulky to store, and they obscure the beauty of fine furniture. Because toppers are not esthetically appealing, they are customarily covered with tablecloths. Tablecloths exacerbate the problem by covering beautifully carved table legs, marquetry, wood grain and other decorative details. Therefore, it would be advantageous for a protective device to be transferable to any household surface, to be inexpensive, space saving, and that does not detract from the beauty of household furnishings.
Another traditional method of protecting tabletops is to cover them with a sheet of glass, similarly as a topper. All of the disadvantages of toppers also apply to glass sheeting except that glass does not obscure the beauty of fine furnishings. The primary disadvantage of glass is that it allows water to untidily pool and flow across its surface, dampening cocktail napkins and elbows alike. Glass sheeting adequately isolates water from a furniture surface, but it does not prevent the untidiness of pooled water.
It is an overall disadvantage of traditional methods such as under liners, toppers and glass that they do not meet the needs of contemporary home entertaining. Sit-down dinners attended to by domestic employees and staged in a formal dining room are no longer as common as they once were. Architects and builders have acknowledged this lifestyle change with new floor plans featuring kitchens that open out to seating areas, called hearth rooms. This change has been brought about because dining rooms are no longer the focal point for family meals or for entertaining guests. The current style of entertaining is more relaxed and informal for the majority of people. The main meal is likely to be served buffet style, but consumed by guests scattered around the den, kitchen and living room. It is prohibitively expensive to have a topper or glass sheet made for every surface in a home. And, it is not convenient for a host to replace under liner towels that have become saturated during a party. Hence, traditional methods are not practical in contemporary party settings.
Although USPTO patent documents do not reference a pad apparatus equivalent to the present invention, an analysis of this type of prior art is nonetheless important and will be approached in broad terms by considering two areas of technology that generally relate to absorbent barriers. Coasters and exudates pad technologies have been selected because they are both concerned with controlling liquid by-products. The argument developed hereinafter is that materials and methods employed by these two technologies cannot feasibly address the particular purposes of the present invention. Aside from the issue of precedence, the argument itself is worthwhile because it lays the path to a body of descriptive language and definitions that have already been established in prior art, notwithstanding that coasters and exudate pads have objectives vastly different from that of the present invention.
Coaster technology compares to the present invention in that it is concerned with condensate barriers that cooperate with beverage vessels to protect an underlying surface. More precisely, coasters are aimed at isolating a relatively small volume of water, contained within a glass, from a supportive surface for the relatively short time period required to consume a single portion of a beverage. In contrast, the present invention cooperates with vessels, containing multiple servings, that are in use for several hours. Another contrast is that many types of coasters are made of materials that lose cohesion when they are saturated with water, and for this reason are considered disposable. Disposability is thought of as an advantage in coaster technology, but this characteristic renders a coaster useless in absorbing and containing the amount of condensate produced by a vessel of ice such as a wine cooler. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,938,162 to Honjo (1999) discloses a coaster comprised of sodium polyacrulate reinforced with wax paper or materials with similar properties. Honjo's coaster is only effective until it becomes saturated with water; this is essentially a problem of limited capacity that is common to all coasters with absorptive features. U.S. Pat. No. 4,858,873 to Wilmouth and Wilmouth (1989) discloses a rigidly constructed coaster that features a reservoir to contain water. Any coaster design utilizing a reservoir to isolate water is vulnerable to the same problem as that of the under liner previously discussed—at some unpredictable point in time both an under liner and a coaster using a reservoir in its design must be emptied to prevent overflow, which is an inconvenience not found with the present invention. Another deficiency of coasters featuring a reservoir, such as that disclosed by Woodruff (1978) in U.S. Pat. No. 4,089,498 is that they cannot function with a variety of vessel shapes and sizes. Also, if Woodruff's invention could be adapted to the size necessary to cooperate with a multiserving vessel, it would be as unwieldy and heavy to use as a furniture topper. Indeed, all of the disadvantages of a furniture topper would also apply to an enlarged embodiment of Woodruff's invention. The present invention has the advantages of greater volume capacity and reusability, without the disadvantage of needing to be emptied during use. Also, the present invention is visually appealing, and functions well, with a variety of vessel shapes and sizes.
Although no one could reasonably suggest that a diaper or other pad used to capture body exudates is likely to be put to use in the same manner as the present invention, exudate pad technology must be considered because no other field of invention has so comprehensively examined the transmission of liquid through fabric pads. The exudate pad industry is interested in how the behavior of liquid molecules, absorbed into fabric components, changes or remains the same when these fabrics are organized into a pad, which is also a central issue of the present invention. And as importantly, this comprehensive examination by the exudate pad industry has yielded a body of descriptive language and terms well suited to the discussion of the present invention. U.S. Pat. No. 6,673,982 to Chen, et al. (2004) discloses an exudate pad with a barrier to prevent radial wicking in the plane of the pad. The object of the Chen, et al. pad is to provide “[. . . ] high permeability in the thickness direction but low permeability in the plane [. . . ]” to prevent leakage by preferentially holding fluids in the central region of an exudate pad (p. 1). Chen, et al. cite a general failure in the prior art of their field to prevent wicking from the center target region of the pad to its edges. Furthermore, these authors generalize all product failures in the exudate pad industry as quintessentially being failures to contain exudates in an absorbent core that is both isolated from the body at the target area of fluid intake and isolated from the edges of the pad. It is the overall aim of exudate pad technology to absorb and concentrate fluids within a centrally located core to prevent leakage or topsheet flow. This assertion finds further support in U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,123 to Salerno, et al. (2001), U.S. Pat. No. 6,448,466 to Ribeiro de Carvalho (2002), and U.S. Pat. No. 6,673,984 to Roe, et al. (2004). U.S. Pat. No. 6,610,903 to Latimer, et al. (2003) allows for some lengthwise transmission of fluid from the target area, but this is even so just an extension of the same industry objective, which is to entrap exudates in a circumscribed area within a pad, to bury exudates until the exudate pad is replaced. The present invention, however, purposes to accomplish the opposite by encouraging as much as possible the radial wicking of liquid away from the target area so that a maximum peripheral surface area for desorption is achieved. In summary, this type of prior art is usefully comparable to the present invention, but does not supersede the present invention because exudate pad technology endeavors to control liquids in an opposite manner.
To summarize the state of prior art, traditional methods of under liners, toppers, and glass sheeting have many disadvantages and none of the advantages of the present invention. Furthermore, published prior art fields of invention such as coasters and exudate pads do not address the need for an apparatus that isolates surfaces from condensate runoff, particularly runoff generated by multiserving vessels customarily in use for many hours.